EFF: lobby packet%20wd%20-%20FINAL1

8/14/2019 EFF: lobby packet%20wd%20-%20FINAL1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eff-lobby-packet20wd20-20final1 1/14

For more information, please see:http://www.VerifiedVoting.org

http://www.VotersUnite.org

Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) on Electronic Voting and Voter-Verified Paper Records

Elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and verifiable election results aredemanded by the American people. Republicans and Democrats understand

this, which is why so many election reform bills have already been introduced inthe House and Senate. The solution proposed by both parties involvesrequiring voter-verifiable paper records for all voting machines. One bill, Rep.Holt's H.R. 550, has pulled ahead of the pack and already has over 130bipartisan co-sponsors. Republicans also have shown great leadership on thisissue (see page 2 for details), and we now have an opportunity to implementthis much-needed election reform. Please support election integrity bybecoming a co-sponsor of HR 550 today.





"Who supports voter-verified paper records?"

Answer: Voter-verified paper records enjoy a broad spectrum of support that includes many prominent Republicans. This shortselection of quotations and anecdotes is intended to provide a sampling of how Republican leaders across America are some of the strongest

advocates for voter-verified paper records.

Roll Call. Norman Ornstein:1

At the same time, the biggest flaw out there is that the vast bulk of DREs have no paper trail - makingnearly impossible any manual recount or the resolution of any dispute. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) has

introduced a bill to force quick action to add the paper record to all these machines. It should be passed

quickly by Congress.

US Senator John Ensign (R-NV):2

"Voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be counted properly. A paper trail

provides just such an assurance."

Nevada. Dean Heller, Secretary of State (R):

Secretary of State Dean Heller urged the Senate Finance Committee to pass SB501, which would allocate

$15 million to buy 4,400 machines with voter-verifiable paper trails.

... Heller said that without giving voters the option to review their ballot on paper, "it's garbage in,

garbage out." 3

"…there are certain people within the election process who don't want that scrutiny on how elections are

run…. Why elections directors so fight this process is just incredible to me."4

Washington. Sam Reed, Secretary of State (R):5

We in the state of Washington have a responsibility to meet this federal mandate, but to do so cautiously.

That's why I'm calling for strict safeguards and security around every electronic voting machine in thisstate.

First, all electronic voting equipment must include a voter verifiable paper audit trail by 2006. This

paper audit trail is essentially your hard-copy guarantee that your vote has been recorded as you intended.

Minnesota. Mary Kiffmeyer, Secretary of State (R):6

Everyone in Minnesota votes on a paper ballot, and I think just about all of us agree that's the way it always

should be.

... With new technologies, people with disabilities now can have what effectively amounts to a

sophisticated "pen" to mark their ballots privately and independently, too. The new technologies really are

quite marvelous — they preserve the standard paper ballot that we all want to keep, and they give

everyone privacy, independence and accuracy.





Georgia. State Senate:

In 2004, Georgia's Republican-dominated Senate passed (52 – 3) SB500 requiring a voter-verified

paper audit trail.7

The bill then died in a Democrat-dominated House.8

Virginia. Fairfax County Republican Committee report on the November 2003 election:9

Based on its investigation, FCRC is offering recommendations and solutions to restore confidence in the

vote. The primary recommendation: establish a local or state independent study – open to the public - toreview software, hardware and failings associated with Fairfax County voting machines.

Further, FCRC recommends that the Virginia General Assembly enact statutes that require: (1) a voter

verified paper audit trail incorporated into all state-certified voting systems, and (2) that the voter

verified paper ballots be compared – in a select number of polling places – to the vote totals recorded

on the DRE.

Free Congress Foundation. Jill Farrell, Director of Communications:10

Regardless of the “new and improved” voting system your precinct may be using, it is vital that you and

all of your neighbors demand a verifiable paper audit trail. Each vote absolutely must be verifiable.

1 Congress Must Act Now to Prevent ’04 Election Debacle. March 17, 2004. Roll Call. By Norman Ornstein.

http://www.rollcall.com/pub/49_94/ornstein/4783-1.html; Archive at

http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/Ornstein%20-%20Congress%20Must%20Action%20Now%20-

%20RollCall.pdf 2

Statement in the US Senate, February 9, 2005, at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109pxTR0m:e530953 Proposal for new Las Vegas-area voting machines questioned. May 2, 2005 in the Las Vegas Sun.

By Elizabeth White, AP, at

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/may/02/050210864.html4 Printers draw fire and praise. Sun Sentinel. February 2, 2004. By Kathy Bushouse, staff writer.

5 Electronic voting must maintain integrity in elections. Editorial Issued: July 12, 2004, at

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/osos_news.aspx?i=ZK2jA2DCLm6RLSd%2bs42Leg%3d%3d6 It's time for statewide voter equality. Pioneer Press. December 21, 2004. By Mary Kiffmeyer, Minnesota

Secretary of State, at

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/10462524.htm7

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/votes/sv0941.htm8

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/sum/sb500.htm9 Operation Ballot Integrity. A Report by Fairfax County Republican Committee. January, 2004, at

http://www.fairfaxco-gop.org/download/ballot_integrity.pdf 10

Pitfalls Of Paperless Voting. Free Congress Foundation. June 2, 2004. By Jill S. Farrell, at

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/040602jf.asp





"Would a paper audit trail actually help?"

Answer: Absolutely. The following list provides documentedexamples of electronic voting machines adding or removing votes inreal elections. In each of these cases, a permanent paper record of

each vote would have saved votes that were otherwise lost bymalfunctioning voting machines.

Votes LOST in Fairfax County, Virginia. November, 2003. AVS WINVote.

“A number of machines apparently subtracted votes at random from Republican school board candidate Rita S. Thompson, who lost the election by a margin very close to the1% of the votes that were subtracted. ...In the Virginia case it could not be proved whichvotes were switched and which were legitimate, so the existing flawed results were

certified anyway.”1

Votes LOST in Miami-Dade County, Florida. May, 2005. ES&S iVotronic.

“Electronic voting machines tossed out hundreds of ballots during this month's specialelection on slot machines -- and elections workers have traced the same computer error to

five other municipal elections in the past 12 months.”2

Votes LOST in Carteret County, North Carolina. November, 2004. UniLect Patriot.

A memory limitation on the DRE control unit caused 4,438 votes to be permanently lost.If one candidate had not conceded, the state would have had to re-hold the Agriculture

Commissioner's election. 3

Votes LOST in three Pennsylvania counties. November, 2004. UniLect Patriot.Machine malfunctions and high undervote rates in Mercer, Greene, and Beaver countiesled to a re-examination of the voting machines in Pennsylvania. The machinemalfunctioned during the examination and was decertified in the state in April 2005. TheSecretary of the Commonwealth stated that "these malfunctions help explain why there

were more than 10,000 instances where a vote was not counted."4

Votes LOST in San Diego County, California. March 2004. Diebold AccuVoteTS.

The number of people signed in differed from the number of ballots counted by the

machine. The Diebold technician confirmed that votes had been lost.5

Votes ADDED in Miami-Dade County, Florida. November, 2004. ES&S iVotronic.

Nearly 35% of the precincts showed discrepancies. Some may be sloppy accounting,others point to computer error or fraud. For example, Precinct 41 reported that 844 people

signed in and the machines recorded 910 votes.6





Votes ADDED in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. November, 2004. MicroVote.

According to election-office data downloaded by the Observer, 102,109 people votedearly or returned valid absentee ballots. But unofficial results show 106,064 people

casting early and absentee votes for president. 7

Votes ADDED in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. 2002 through 2004. Sequoia Edge.

County Clerk Mary Herrera acknowledged Monday that bogus votes have appeared in atleast three elections. In one case, nearly four thousand phantom votes were added to

just one race.8

Votes ADDED in Vanderburgh County, Indiana. November 2004. ES&S iVotronic.

In some precincts, the number of ballots cast was higher than the number of voters. For example, at the Knight 1 precinct in eastern Vanderburgh County, there were 25 more

votes than the poll book said there should have been.9

1 Why E-Voting Still Is Not E-nough. CNSNews.com Commentary. October 8, 2004. By Jill S. Farrell, Director of

Communications of the Free Congress Foundation.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200410%5CCOM20041

008a.html2 Voting glitches found in 6 recent elections. Miami Herald. March 31, 2005. By Tere Figueras Negrete and Noaki

Schwartz. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/11271837.htm3 Unilect vote device causes uproar. Oakland Tribune. November 24, 2004. By David Morrill.

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=39774 PA Secretary of the Commonwealth Decertifies UniLect Patriot Voting System in Pennsylvania. Press

Release Source: Pennsylvania Department of State. April 7, 2005.http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050407/phth059.html?.v=45

Poll workers, voters cite tied-up hotline, poor training, confusion. Union Tribune; March 7, 2004; By Jeff McDonald and Luis Monteagudo Jr. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040307-9999-1n7vote.html6 Discrepancies found in votes, signatures. Miami Herald. May 7, 2005. By Noaki Schwartz and Jason Grotto.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/11586356.htm?template =contentModules/printstory.jsp

Elections Discrepancies found in 35 percent of Miami-Dade precincts. Daily Business Review. May 06, 2005

By: Jessica M. Walker; http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=34733 (subscription only)7 County retallies early-vote results: Will recount affect Democratic commission sweep? The Charlotte

Observer. November 4, 2004. By Richard Rubin and Carrie Levine, Staff Writers.http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/10094165.htm8 County clerk say phantom votes won't be a problem. KRQE Albuquerque. October 26, 2004. Reproduced:

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=34219

Election results don't add up: Review shows discrepancies in voting. Evansville Courier & Press. November 23, 2004. By John Martin





"How many states require a

voter-verified paper record?"

Answer: 38 states have either passed a paper record law, areconsidering one, or have mixed requirements. Only 12 states havefailed to propose a statewide measure that would require voter-verifiablepaper records.





"If paperless machines worked in one election,

can't we trust them in another?

Answer: That's a trick question! You can't confirm one way or another whether a paperless machine worked in any election, because it can't be

independently audited. However, even if you could, one accuratelycounted race does not mean the next race will be accurately counted.Many programming errors, especially ballot programming errors, arecompletely undetectable and occur with disturbing frequency. And that'swhy random audits are necessary.

Background on Ballot Programming Errors

Ballot programming is done uniquely for each election, and involves setting up the ballot's appearance

and determining how touches on the screen or marks on a ballot are recorded as votes.

Errors in ballot programming cause votes to be recorded incorrectly. Many such errors in the past have

given candidates' votes to an opponent.

It is virtually impossible to detect a ballot programming error on an electronic voting machine, because

there are no source documents to compare to the electronic tally. But so many ballot programming errorshave been detected on paper-based systems that it is unreasonable to believe such errors do not also occur

on paperless electronic voting systems.

In fact, there is one case when flawed ballot data on electronic voting machines caused a serious election

miscount. It was detected only because optical scan ballots were also used in the election:

Texas. April 2002, Dallas County. A candidate for mayor was added to the ballot four days before the

start of early voting, but the change in the ballot definition wasn't programmed into all 390 of the

electronic voting machines until after early voting began. When the results from these machines were

combined with the results from the optical scan machines, the error caused the tally software to

improperly tally results in the mayor's race as well as 17 other races. Nearly 5,000 of the 18,000

ballots were improperly counted.

The following list gives a sampling of other ballot programming errors reported in the news:

Arkansas. November 2004, Carroll County. Mis-programmed ballots skewed the results from the

Justice of the Peace District 2 race.1

California. March 2004, San Diego County. Optical scan machines counted 208,446 ballots. They

miscounted 2,821 votes in the Democratic presidential race and the Republican U.S. Senate seat.2

Florida. April 2002, Miami-Dade County. The initial tally showed wins for two City Councilcandidates who actually lost the election.

3

Illinois. April 2003, Lake County. A ballot programming error failed to account for "no candidate"listings in some races on the ballot, and results were placed next to the names of the wrong candidates

in four races. Correcting the problem changed several outcomes.4





Kansas. August 2002. Clay County. The initial results showed that one candidate for commissioner had

won, but a hand recount showed that his opponent had won by a landslide. In one ward, the

computer had mistakenly reversed the totals.5

North Carolina. November 2002, Wayne County. The machines skipped several thousand party-line

votes, both Republican and Democrat. Correcting the error turned up 5,500 more votes and reversed

the outcome of one state Representative race.6

South Carolina. November 2002, York County. An error in the ballot programming caused votes for the South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture to be uncounted.

7

Texas. March 2004, Lubbock County. The machines failed to count the votes for the Precinct 8Democratic chairman race. 8

Texas. November 2002. Scurry County. A landslide victory for two commissioner candidates was

recounted by hand. The opposing candidates actually won by large margins.9

Wisconsin. November 2004, Medford. The machines weren't set up to read straight-party votes. About

600 of the 2,256 ballots cast were not counted.10

1 Computer glitch blamed for miscount in JP voting. Carroll County Star Tribune. November 10, 2004. By AnnaMathews. http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=38892 New electronic scanners miscounted some county votes. NC Times April 7, 2004; By: Gig Conaughton.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/08/news/top_stories/22_27_394_7_04.txt3 Technician's Error, Not Machines, To Blame In Dade Election Mix-Up. The Miami Herald. April 4, 2002. By

Oscar Corral. [Purchase through Miami Herald online archives: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/archives/]4 Returns are in: Software goofed — Lake County tally misled 15 hopefuls. (reproduced) Chicago Tribune;

April 4, 2003; By Susan Kuczka, Tribune staff reporter. http://www.truevotemd.org/doc_lake_county.asp5 Aug. 6 ballot problems alleged: Clay, Barton county candidates seek review of races. Lawrence Journal-

World. August 22, 2002. The Associated Press. http://www.ljworld.com/section/election02/story/1035266 Winners may be losers. The News and Observer; November 12, 2002; By Wade Rawlins and Rob Christensen.

Reproduced at: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:iy0f4rgd7oMJ:www.ncdot.org/news/dailyclips/2002-11-12zz.html+%22%27Winners%27+may+be+losers%22+wayne&hl=en7

06/04/04 Conversation with Wanda Hemphill, York County Elections Director. Original reference was from Black

Box Voting , Chapter 2. The Herald, Rock Hill, SC , 7 November 2002; “Machine glitch keeps votes from being

counted”8 Software blamed in Precinct 8 Democratic chair race mixup. Lubbock online.com; March 11, 2004; By Brian

Williams, Avalanche-Journal

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/031104/loc_031104030.shtml9

06/03/04. Conversation with Scurry County Elections Director, who said that it was an ES&S 650. She said it wasthe chip with the ballot programming on it, that they had to get a new one from ES&S. Original reference was from

Black Box Voting, Chapter 2. Houston Chronicle, 8 November 2002; “Ballot glitches reverse two election results.”10

About 600 Medford ballots cast in November ignored. Marshfield News-Herald. March 12, 2004. By Jake

Rigdon. http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhlocal/285285292773470.shtml





"Are accessibility and auditability

mutually exclusive?”

Answer: No! Readily available, widely supported voting systems canprovide a paper audit trail while safeguarding disabled voters’ rights

to cast a secret ballot. The following list provides examples of votingtechnologies that address both access and integrity concerns.

Electronic ballot markers can be used to fill out optical scan ballots, which are the mostcommon voting technology in the United States. These systems look like touchscreen votingmachines, but they record votes on paper records instead of internal memory. This kind of unitcan have extensive accessibility features (audio interface, sip/puff input, multiple languages,etc.), and every vote can be verified before submission:

1. Avante’s Optical Vote-Trakker 1

is a federally qualified, accessible, electronic ballot-marking system. It was the first system qualified to the FEC’s 2002 voting standards.

2. ES&S is in the process of attaining federal qualification for the AutoMark electronic ballot marking system. The AutoMark was tested successfully in Arizona in 2004, wherea disabled voter who had just cast his first unassisted balloted remarked “My experiencetoday is a story I will tell my grandkids many years from now.”2 The AutoMark is also being deployed in South Dakota.3

Electronic voting machines with a voter-verifiable paper audit trail can also provideaccessible and secure voting. Some manufacturers already produce such units and others areworking on methods of retrofitting existing machines with printers:

1. Avante’s Vote-Trakker is an accessible, VVPB-equipped touchscreen that has been

used successfully in five separate elections and the American Council of the Blind liststhe Vote-Trakker as an accessible voting system.4 In addition, Jim Dickson of theAmerican Association of People with Disabilities has called Avante’s VVPAT an“elegant way” to provide a paper audit trail if one is mandated.5

2. AccuPoll produces a federally qualified, accessible, VVPB-equipped DRE system.6 The American Council for the Blind lists AccuPoll as an accessible voting systemmanufacturer.7 When tested at the New Jersey Library of the Blind and Handicapped, itwas reported that “a vast majority of those who evaluated the electronic voting system providing either “very good” or “excellent” marks. Evaluators also responded favorablyto AccuPoll’s voter verified paper audit trial, which allows voters with visualimpairments to audibly review the permanent paper audit trail as their ballot is cast.”8

3. Sequoia Voting Systems, the country’s third-largest election equipment manufacturer, produces a VVPAT-equipped AVC Edge. The unit was selected to be the uniform votingsystem in Nevada during the 2004 presidential election.9

Disability Rights Advocates Push for Auditable, Accessible Elections

Barbara Silverstone, CEO of Lighthouse International, New York City's oldest and largestvision rehabilitation agency serving people who are blind and partially sighted, puts it best when





she writes that the organization “sees no contradiction between accessible voting and

verifiable voting for all Americans. We support both concepts in the interest of fair elections."

10Many other disability rights organizations share this position:

The following disability advocacy organizations have endorsed a New York election reformcoalition statement asserting that "New voting machines should provide a 'voter-verifiable

paper audit trail' and incorporate 'data-to-voice' technology to ensure full access by all"

11

:American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc., Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York (CIDNY), Disabilities Network of NYC, NY State Young Democrats DisabilityIssues Caucus, Westchester Council Of The Blind, Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc.

The following disability advocacy organizations have endorsed a New Jersey election reformcoalition statement asserting that "New voting machines should have a 'voter-verifiable paper

audit trail' and 'data to voice' technology"12: Alliance For the Betterment of Citizens WithDisabilities: Spina Bifida Association Tri-State Region, and the Monday Morning Project Networks of 16 different New Jersey counties.

1

Avante, FIRST TRUE PIXEL-BASED OPTICAL MARK-SENSE VOTING SYSTEM ACHIEVED 0%ERROR RATE IN 1.5 MILLION VOTES (May 17, 2004), at http://www.aitechnology.com/votetrakker2/Optical%20Vote-Trakker%20Press%20Release.PDF2

David Madrid, “Disabled Man Casts First Ballot on His Own,” The Arizona Republic, (November 4, 2004).3

SECRETARY OF STATE ANNOUNCES VOTING MACHINE SUPPLIER, April 22, 2005, at http://www.sdsos.gov/Voting%20Machine%20Supplier.htm4

American Council of the Blind, ACCESSIBLE VOTING FACT SHEET (2001), at http://web.archive.org/web/20020816072511/http://acb.org/washington/accessible-fact02.html5

Kevin Chung, TESTIMONY BEFORE CA VOTING SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES PANEL, APRIL 22-24,

2004 (2004), at http://tinyurl.com/yrmj86

Accupoll, ACCUPOLL RECEIVES 2002 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION VOTING SYSTEM

STANDARDS CERTIFICATION, at http://www.accupoll.com/News/NewsReleases/releases/2005-05-11.html

7 Supra, note 4.8

AccuPoll, ACCUPOLL SYSTEM SCORES HIGH MARKS FOR ACCESSIBILITY (2005), at

http://www.accupoll.com/News/NewsReleases/releases/2005-05-03.html9

Sequoia, SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS SELECTED TO PROVIDE UNIFORM STATEWIDEELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM FOR NEVADA (2003), at http://www.sequoiavote.com/article.php?id=5510

Barbara Silverstone, Chief Executive Officer, Lighthouse International, "A Verifiable, Accessible Vote" (Letter to

the Editor) the New York Times, June 11, 2004.11

Statement available at http://www.nypirg.org/goodgov/hava/machines/default.html12

Statement available at http://www.njappleseed.org/Downloads/Making%20Votes%20Count04.pdf





"Aren't voting machines heavily tested?"

Answer: America currently has a patchwork of inconsistent andinadequate testing regimes. In the words of Dr. Michael I. Shamos in histestimony before the Environment, Technology, and Standards

Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee onScience on June 24, 2004:1

“I am here today to offer my opinion that the system we have for testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken, but is virtually nonexistent.”

The following is a breakdown of how just how broken the testing systemis in America today.

Step One — "Federal Certification"The misnomer "federal certification" is applied to the testing of voting systems against voluntaryfederal standards. NO government entity does any testing, and the systems that pass this processare not certified for use in any state. Vendors enter into a confidential agreement with anIndependent Testing Authority (ITA) approved by the National Association of State ElectionDirectors. The ITA tests the voting system design to ensure that it meets Federal Voting Systemstandards. The vendor pays the ITA. All information about the process and results is confidential

— hidden even from election officials.2

If the system is approved by the ITA, it receives a "NASED number" and is added to a list of "qualified" voting systems. However, Dr. Shamos says the Federal Voting System Standards(FVSS) are incomplete and out of date. He points out that the ITAs do not even test for viruses.

Few voting machines even meet the most recent (2002) standards. Most meet only 1990standards, which were developed before the introduction of the Windows operating system used by many of the "qualified" systems.

Step Two — State Certification

States check a voting system's function for specific state needs, such as the ability to rotatecandidates on the ballot or handle straight-party voting. Since they trust the qualifying process,most states do nothing to ensure that the equipment meets FVSS standards. They do not check software for viruses or malicious code, nor examine its security features. Indeed, vendor concerns about trade secrets generally prevent officials from inspecting those internal workings.

Because states trust the broken qualification process, Dr. Shamos says: "We are less safe in 2004than we were 20 years ago."

Step Three — Local Pre-Election Testing

Each machine should be tested for Logic & Accuracy before every election, but may not be."The machines may work according to specification but if they have not been loaded with theappropriate set of ballot styles to be used in a polling place they will be completely ineffective,"says Shamos.





Pre-election testing should ensure that software was set up to accurately count the specific ballotsfor that election. Most election administrators receive no training in software or hardware testing,yet they must test software and how it works on the mechanical devices on which it is installed.They are the only ones who test a crucial function of the system — the ballot setup which turnsvoter actions into electronic data. Yet most of them are completely unqualified to perform thistesting, and often they have failed to detect errors

Counties with DREs have too many machines to test them all thoroughly before an election, andthey generally don’t have time to do so. According to Computer Professionals for SocialResponsibility: "This results in logic and accuracy tests that are smaller yet, to the point where

the test is testing for little besides a stuck button or a completely nonfunctional DRE.”3

1 Testimony of Dr. M. I. Shamos, (highlighting added) Co-Director, Institute for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon

University. He has served as an examiner of, and consultant on, electronic voting systems to PA, NV, and DE.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/ets04/jun24/shamos.pdf 2 National Association of State Election Directors General Overview for Getting a Voting System Qualified.

Page 5. http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDITAProcess.pdf 3

CPSR Comments on the California Touch Screen Task Force Report. August 1, 2003; Computer Professionalsfor Social Responsibility. http://www.cpsr.org/issues/vote-catouchscreen.html





"Why is HR 550 the best solution?"

Answer: Because of its narrow scope, its realistic goals, and its strong bi-partisan support, it has the best chance of passage in time to protect the

accuracy, integrity and security of the vote count in the 2006 elections andbeyond. H.R. 550 addresses one issue – the need for independent auditabilityof the vote count, and for a certain number of random audits in every state as acheck on the results -- and addresses it in a comprehensive, but realistic manner,with a 2006 deadline. There are a number of other paper trail bills on the table,some introduced by Republicans and some by Democrats. In the House, onlyone, H.R. 550, has strong bi-partisan support, with more than 130 bipartisancosponsors, including the Republican Chairman of the Government ReformCommittee.

H.R. 550 – Off to a very strong start

Rep. Holt introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R.

550) on February 2, 2005 with 50 original bipartisan cosponsors. In two weeks it

had more than 100, and today it has more than 130.

H.R. 550 – The “Gold Standard” in verifiability legislation

Read what Bob Kibrick, Legislative Analyst for VerifiedVoting.org, has to say aboutH.R. 550, which requires a voter-verified paper record for every vote cast, a percentageof random audits in each state, and requires that “the entire process of voter verificationand vote casting [be] accessible to the voter”:

“H.R. 550, the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005" wasintroduced on February 2, 2005 by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey. . . . .This is an updatedand expanded version of a similar bill (H.R. 2239) that Rep. Holt introduced in the previous session. This bill is the "gold standard" of Verified Voting bills. VerifiedVoting.org supports H.R.550 in the strongest possible terms and encourages all

members of the House to become cosponsors.”

Alternatives offered by Republican Members are not strong enough

Read what Bob Kibrick has to say about Rep. Jim Gibbon’s (R-NV) Voting Integrity

and Verification Act of 2005 (H.R. 704):H.R. 704 is “significantly more limited in scope than H.R. 550 . . .”; it does “establish aneffective [voter-verified paper record] VVPR requirement and mandate that the VVPR isthe ballot of record in the case of any audits or recounts” . . . . it does “not, however,establish any requirement for mandatory manual audits in randomly-selected precincts,nor . . . establish any funding to implement VVPRs.”





And what he has to say about Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) Know Your Vote Counts Act of

2005 (H.R. 278):

“H.R. 278 is significantly weaker than H.R. 550 . . . While H.R. 278 would establish arequirement for voter-verified paper records (VVPRs), it fails to make those VVPRs the ballot of record in any recount or audit. In the case of a discrepancy between the VVPRs

and the electronic records, the King bill does not require the VVPR to take precedence,and for this reason it is fatally flawed . Neither does it require any mandatory manualaudits of the VVPRs in randomly-selected precincts, nor does it provide any funding toimplement VVPRs.

Alternatives offered by Democratic Members -- in part, perhaps, because they cover

many other important election reform topics -- do not contain sufficiently rigorous

paper record language; they also do not have bi-partisan support.

This is what Verified Voting’s Legislative Analyst has to say about The Voting

Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005 (H.R. 533) , anomnibus election reform bill that covers many important election reform topics inaddition to the topic of electronic voting security:

“Section 5 of this bill is derived from Section 4 of S.17. Unfortunately, the voter-verified ballot provisions of this bill, like its Senate counterpart, are fatally flawed. Unless and

until the flaws in Section 5 are corrected or removed, VerifiedVoting.org cannot support H.R.533.”

And this is what he had to say about the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 (H.R. 939), anomnibus election reform bill that also covers many important election reform topics inaddition to the topic of electronic voting security, and requires voting systems to offer paper records that “shall be available for visual, audio and pictorial inspection andverification”:

This bill has “good requirements for VVPRs and recounts, but also new requirements for audio and pictorial-based methods for verifying VVPRs that will be difficult to meet bythe specified deadlines and would limit the options, such as optical scan with ballotmarking devices, available for meeting the needs of voters with disabilities.”

For more information on HR 550 and other legislation, please see:

http://www.VerifiedVoting.org/legis

and

http://www.VoteTrustUSA.org/legislation/housebillsanalysis.htm

EFF: lobby packet%20wd%20-%20FINAL1

Documents

Transcript of EFF: lobby packet%20wd%20-%20FINAL1